Hello Chris, others,
I'm glad to confirm that I'm extremely happy with your new wording.
And I strictly promise I won't find any new hair in the soup anymore.
On 2010/12/07 23:52, Chris Lilley wrote:
On Thursday, November 25, 2010, 7:30:41 AM, Martin wrote:
MJD> What about:
MJD> Fragment Identifiers
MJD> For documents labeled as application/svg+xml, the fragment
MJD> identifier notation follows the XML Pointer Language (XPointer)
MJD> Framework (see http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/). Fragment
MJD> identifiers are either Shorthand Pointers (formerly called barenames) or
MJD> SVG view specifications. For details, please see Section 17.3.2 of the
MJD> SVG specification
MJD> or some such.
I looked into this. At first, I was going to normatively reference XPointer
Framework as you suggested.
However, the SVG WG had made a decision not to reference XPointer (superceeded)
and not to reference XPointer Framework either, partly because of concerns over
the scope of the conformance criteria
and also because this is not in any case needed just to define barenames.
So I have added adapted wording:
For documents labeled as application/svg+xml, the
fragment identifier notation is either Shorthand Pointers
(formerly called barenames) or the SVG-specific SVG Views
both described in the fragment identifiers section of the
>>> Published specification:
>>> This media type registration is extracted from Appendix P of the
>>> SVG 1.1 specification.
MJD> First, we made some tweaks, and second, the published specification is
MJD> all of SVG 1.1, not just the mimereg part, as far as I understand.
Also fixed; both Appendix P and the spec as a whole are separately referenced.
This media type registration is extracted from Appendix P
of the SVG 1.1 specification.
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University